|
 | |||
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide | ||
| Email this page to a friend | ||
| ||||||||||||||||||
2006 ELECTIONS |
Related pagesLetters supporting candidates in upcoming elections Voters to choose Dan Gillespie or Joan White for county Clerk Candidates for positions up for election in November 2006 in San Juan County | |
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Supporting 1-933Dear Editor, posted 10/30/2006 I believe strongly that as long as a land owner is not polluting or harming neighbors, government shouldn't have the right to take away the ability to use or benefit from your own property. For four years I served on the citizen's advisory committee for the San Juan Island district to help write our new comprehensive plan to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). I volunteered happily and was enthused by the chance to take part in planning that would follow the goals of GMA which basically was pitched to us as "protecting the environment as well as property rights". I recall at least three versions of a comp plan that were passed by the county commissioners and each one was challenged by lawsuits by a small group of people and an environmental group who did not get what they wanted as far as land use restrictions. These suits were heard and decided by the governors appointed Growth Hearings Board, taking the decisions about land use away from our local elected officials ……each time the results were more restrictive land use laws. This story has repeated itself time and time again, from farming and timber to the controversial King County Critical areas ordinance, an un fair land use policy certain to spread to other counties in our state. Having experienced first hand some of the effects of "overboard" land use laws I think that it is time to spread the burden of the cost of these regulations out from the individuals and families who own the land to all of us who demand the restrictions on private property. I strongly feel that we need to protect our environment AND protecting our environment can be done with a more incentive based approach such as Transfer of Development Rights, conservation easements and other means of getting the job done without just taking legal use of private property without just compensation. I am sure this initiative if it passes will be quite chaotic for those in the environmental industry and to those in the system but I really think it is necessary to get some fairness back to those who have kept their land as part of their livelihood and well being. We have got to stop burdening people who have been good stewards of their land by taking their land use options away . If aspects of a private property are worthy of imposing a regulation the public should either find a means to compensate the private property owner or not impose the regulation. Please join me in voting for Initiative 933. Michael W. Carlson Dear Editor, posted 10/09/2006
Those who know me know I support many environmental organizations and causes, financially and with sweat. Few can parallel my support for recycling: I started the ROAR program (Reach Out And Recycle) and Consignment Treasures. So, why am I supporting I-933? Because I-933 won't touch any law, zoning code or rule passed before Jan. 1, 1996, and by that time there were quite a few of them. Since that time many environmental laws have been passed that are over the top, out of control, and they have gone too far. That is why Oregon passed their own form of I-933, and why we should too. The best example I can give you is my brother Fred’s situation. Years ago he bought a small lot in a 40 year old subdivision that had 95% of the homes built. Six years ago Fred and Mervie went to build their retirement home and found out their lot was now considered a class 3 wetland. Because of new laws, Fred and Mervie cannot plant the lawn, or build the house and garage they wanted. They were told the lot was not big enough. That’s because the rules say they have to give up 83% control of their lot. He is allowed to use only 17% of his lot, unless he is willing to give King County money for environmental use elsewhere. Before Fred and Mervie went to build, their lot was worth over $75,000. The King County Assessor has now revalued their property to $1,000. How would you like to have your retirement plans and home ruined, and lose a substantial portion of your retirement investment? In addition, Fred and Mervie’s neighbors do not have to have the same regulations on their lots, simply because they built before the new laws were passed. The harassment Fred and Mervie received was so expensive and threatening that they offered to give King County their property for free, if King County would just leave them alone. Fred and Mervie have now spent 6 years of harassment, as well as a small fortune in permit and legal costs, trying to settle the issues. This is only one example of overbearing and unfair changes in regulations. There are many more. Politically I-933 is a property rights issue and a reaction to city people’s choices to protect wildlife and natural beauty by making property owners pay for it. It has now gone beyond being strictly a rural issue, because my brother’s property is hardly rural. It is a small building lot in a sub division. Simply put, this is stealing from some individuals for the benefit of others. Property that is taken by the government from people should be paid for by tax dollars, since it is explained as being a benefit for everyone. Let’s not be a party to theft from our neighbors. At some point, if you choose to be a property owner, it will affect you too. We, as well as the government, need to be respectful and fair to our neighbors. Let’s choose actions like the Nisqually agreement. It is a superior alternative to top-down regulation. It is adaptive and flexible rather than bureaucratic, and it lends itself to win-win solutions instead of one group imposing its wishes on another. Let’s all pay for environmental choices with taxes, rather than steal from individuals for them. I-933 is only fair. Vote yes. Frank M. Penwell |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 |
|